International Free Press Society

Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Islamophobia’ Category

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

As I have mentioned previously, one of major goals of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is to stop “Islamophobia”, which is its preferred term for the criticism of or opposition to Islam by non-Muslims.

The word “Islamophobia” is of relatively recent coinage. I never encountered it until after 9-11, and it was subjected to widespread ridicule, at least among non-Muslims and non-leftists, when it first became widely known. However, after the OIC and the UN harped on it for a few years, and the progressive media solemnly repeated the Muslim party line, “Islamophobia” gained general currency as a serious, scholarly word for a dangerous mental deficiency that needed to be eradicated in the West.

It piggybacked its way into politically correct usage on “homophobia”, which in turn drew on the word “xenophobia” as its ideological predecessor. Strangely enough, “xenophobia” is not in my Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, but appears in my Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. The word is not terribly old; it was coined in the late 19th century during a period when many mental disorders were first being labeled with Greek neologisms. Based on the Greek word for “fear”, a “phobia” was the general term assigned to conditions of morbid fearfulness. “Hydrophobia”, for example, was used to describe a morbid fear of water. The stem “xeno-” means “strange” or “foreign”, and “xenophobia” was originally synonymous with “agoraphobia” — it meant “a morbid fear of open spaces”.

It wasn’t until the 20th century, with its new preoccupation with race, that “xenophobia” was assigned its current meaning: “a morbid dislike or dread of foreigners”. In the second half of the century, after the racial ravages of National Socialism, any distaste for foreigners or preference for one’s own kind was stigmatized as “xenophobic”. This shunning helped pave the way for mass Muslim immigration into Western countries by transforming opposition to such policies into a mental disorder.

Half a century later, the “xenophobia” precedent has helped legitimize its stepchild “Islamophobia”, which does similar service in stigmatizing any resistance to Islamization.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
So much for the pedigree of the word “Islamophobia”. We know its function: to delegitimize the opponents of Islam by transforming their political opinions into a mental illness. And not just a neutral mental illness like obsessive-compulsive disorder or schizophrenia, but an evil sort of lunacy, for which one should be committed to an asylum for the criminally insane.

If the OIC achieves its goals, and Islamophobia is outlawed in the West, lawmakers, bureaucrats, and the police will require guidelines about the ways in which this ugly disease manifests itself, so they can recognize those who suffer from it and assign them to a secure facility for treatment. DHS will need to write up a handbook for its local agents describing what to watch out for. Federal and state legislators will need a clear definition of the word to include in the laws they pass against it.

So what is Islamophobia? What’s a good working definition of the word?

Fortunately, someone has already done the hard work of laying out the concept in detail. And, needless to say, the defining was done by Muslims themselves.

The following article, A Proposed Definition of Islamophobia”, was written last year by a European group called the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), an umbrella organization of Muslim NGOs from all over the continent.

Even though it was composed from a European perspective, this definition is probably similar to what will be used in the United States when required. I’ll go through it by sections, bolding phrases and sentences that merit further discussion:

Islamophobia is a form of intolerance and discrimination motivated with fear, mistrust and hatred of Islam and its adherents. It is often manifested in combination with racism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments and religious intolerance.

Notice that this lead paragraph presupposes an understanding of what is in the mind of an Islamophobe. It assumes that opposition to Islam must be motivated by fear and hatred. It excludes the possibility that opponents of Islam may be motivated primarily by rational self-interest, rather than angry passion.

The text does not specify it, but one may assume that EMISCO’s definition denies the existence of any other motives for opposing Islam. It is simply considered impossible that any non-Muslim could inform himself about the scriptures, teachings, and laws of Islam, read the history of Islamic expansion, observe the behavior of Muslims in his own time, and come to the reasoned conclusion that Islam is a dangerous political ideology that has degraded and impoverished every society in which it has become dominant.

Such rational conclusions cannot be drawn. The possibility of doing so will be defined out of existence. “Fear”, “mistrust”, and “hatred” are the only acknowledged motives that anyone could have for opposing Islamization.

Manifestations of Islamophobia include hate speech, violent acts and discriminatory practices, which can be manifested by both non-state actors and state officials.

“Hate speech” is already well-established as a stand-alone crime in Europe, but in the United States it must accompany a “violent act” or other statutory crime before it can be prosecuted. Perhaps the intention here is to help it become a crime by redefining the scope of “discriminatory practices”, which are already illegal in the USA.

This seems to be the general tactic being pursued by Hillary Clinton and the State Department in their consultations with the OIC — to identify those who oppose Islamization as “discriminatory” as they engage in their “defamation of religion”.

Islamophobic rhetoric associates Muslims with terrorism and portrays them as an international and domestic threat. It makes stereotypical allegations about Muslims as a monolithic group of people whose culture is backward and incompatible with human rights and democracy.

Here we have a familiar theme that is often used by Islamic interest groups to deflect any criticism of Islam. Those who associate Muslims with terrorism are making “stereotypical allegations”. This assertion ignores the possibility that “stereotypical” statements about Muslims may be true, as a statistical assessment of the behavior of Muslims.

If I say that cows are revered under Hinduism and protected from harm, is that a “stereotypical allegation” about Hindus? Of course not; it is a simple statement about the practices of most Hindus.

In the case of Islam, it is true that the vast majority of Muslims do not commit terrorism. A somewhat smaller majority do not provide logistical or financial assistance for terrorists. An even smaller majority — possibly even a minority, depending on which surveys are consulted — disapprove of the actions of Islamic terrorists.

What percentage of those who commit, support, or approve of terrorist acts is too large to be acceptable? What percentage is small enough to be tolerated?

This is a discussion that cannot be engaged in, under the strictures that define “Islamophobia”.

As for “backward and incompatible” — these characteristics can also be statistically determined. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Other examples of Islamophobic rhetoric in political discourse, the media, schools, work place and in the religious sphere involve, but are not limited to:

Calling for banning and/or restricting visibility and practices of Islam in public space on the grounds that Islam is not a religion but an oppressive ideology;

Accusing Muslims of not willing [sic] to integrate in the society where they live in, but imposing their own values and culture;

Describing Muslims as a demographic time-bomb which will become a numerical majority where they are minority for the time-being;

Charging Muslims with not being loyal to the country that they live in but to the Muslim community as a whole;

Advocating collective expulsion of Muslims based on the accusation that they are enemies within;

Dehumanizing and demonizing Muslims as a collective “other” defined only on religious basis, leading to the racialisation of the “Muslim category”;

Accusing Muslims of being responsible for wrongdoing committed by other Muslim individuals or groups;

Denying contributions that Muslims made and have been making to the society and World;

Rejecting any possibility of co-operation between Muslims and non-Muslims.

As you can see, the above list includes — in somewhat cartoonish terms — many of the arguments that are used in this blog and other forums that oppose sharia and the Islamization of the West.

In “restricting visibility and practices of Islam in public space”, countries like France are simply enforcing the secularity of the public space, which is considered an integral characteristic of the country’s laws and culture. Muslims insist that an exception must be made for them; that they are different; that their religion requires public displays. Thus we must comply with their own laws and accommodate them.

Why?

Why must we do that?

Those questions cannot be answered, or even discussed, because to do so constitutes Islamophobia.

Many Muslims are most emphatically unwilling to “integrate” — they proclaim that fact openly, and their imams preach against integration in their sermons. To point this out is to state a simple fact, one that is backed up by ample evidence. The “demographic time-bomb” would be less of an issue if Muslims were willing to integrate.

Anyone who objects to his own culture being gradually supplanted by an alien and hostile culture is therefore Islamophobic.

The “racialisation of the ‘Muslim category’” is an important strategy — it helps turn criticism of Islam into the legal equivalent of racial discrimination, which will help the campaign to make “Islamophobia” illegal in the United States.

Acts of Islamophobia, which can be committed by non-state actors or state officials, include:

Physical attacks, which are carried out spontaneously by individuals or organized groups, on individuals, community institutions and property that are rightly or wrongly associated with Muslims or Islam;

Discriminatory immigration and naturalization procedures directly or indirectly excluding Muslims or placing them in a disadvantageous situation in comparison with people of other religious origin;

Racial/religious profiling measures, including stop and search, surveillance of religious and cultural Muslim organizations, and no flight lists, which have disproportional impact on Muslims;

Restrictions, by either legislative or administrative means, on the visibility of religious symbols targeting at exclusively Muslims, as in the case of prohibition of minarets.

“Physical attacks” are already against the law in all countries. There is no need to add an “Islamophobic” category of assault, except to further the exceptionalism of Islam, as required by sharia.

“Racial/religious profiling measures” are virtually non-existent in almost all Western countries, so the issue is moot. Islam has already won that skirmish.

“Discriminatory immigration and naturalization procedures” are an inherent right of all sovereign nations. To deny that right is to remove the sovereignty of nations, and make them part of the Ummah.

Now we come to policy recommendations:

Institutional Islamophobia is state policies and systematic practices discriminating Muslims [sic] based on their religious identity. It poses a serious threat to the security of Muslims because such policies and practices can lead to spreading bias, and therefore be a fertile ground for hate crimes

Recommendations to Combat Islamophobia

In order to combat Islamophobia and foster tolerance and mutual understanding based on the international human rights standards, States should:

Take all necessary measures in their legal systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment, violence and discrimination in all walks of life;

Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia;

Include in their integration policies programmes and activities addressing Islamophobia and its roots causes;

Record, monitor and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic hate crimes committed within their territory and make such reports publically [sic] available;

Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;

Take all necessary measures in order to prevent racial/religious profiling and other forms of institutionalized Islamophobia;

Conduct public awareness campaigns and specific programmes for governmental officials in order to combat Islamophobia;

Encourage and support intergovernmental human rights agencies and non-governmental organizations dealing with Islamophobia;

Strive to develop necessary mechanisms and standards to increase international co-operation in combating Islamophobia.

To implement “comprehensive educational strategies” means to enforce sharia-compliance in schools, training programs, and all other forms of public instruction.

To create “specialized bodies and initiatives” to evaluate and monitor eruptions of Islamophobia means to grant the demands for sharia, since only Muslims may judge the behavior of non-Muslims concerning Islam.

To “record, monitor and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic hate crimes” means to augment the existing surveillance state for the purposes of enforcing Islamic law.

To “combat Islamophobic hate crimes… in the media and on the Internet” means to enforce the tenets of sharia concerning Islamic slander, and restrict free speech accordingly.

To “increase international co-operation” means to allow the UN — which is already pushing sharia-compliance with respect to the “defamation of religion” — to override any legal impediments to sharia within its member states.

In other words, this is all about enforcing sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

As you can see, there is a National Association of Muslim Police in Britain. Do they have a National Association of Christian Police? Would such a thing be permitted?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
When considering EMISCO’s definitions and recommendations, think back on what Secretary of State Clinton said last month in Istanbul.

Remember the OIC’s stated intentions concerning Islamophobia, as stated in its foreign ministers’ resolution and its annual “Islamophobia Observatory” report.

Notice also that the UN Human Rights Council has already fallen into line with the OIC by passing Resolution 16/18, which Mrs. Clinton was touting in Istanbul.

EMISCO’s definition is just part of a larger mosaic. It represents one strategy within a concerted push by the Ummah, acting through the OIC and various other affiliated bodies and their compliant Western counterparts.

Islam means business when it comes to eradicating “Islamophobia”. Thanks to the enormous wealth wielded by the petro-sheiks, the fecklessness of our leaders, and the somnolence of ordinary Westerners, the OIC is well on the way to achieving its goal.

Don’t think it can’t happen here in the USA. Hillary Clinton is dead set on it. If Barack Hussein Obama gets re-elected next year and manages to appoint a Supreme Court justice or two, all bets are off.

Did you know that Jews and Muslims have a shared history in Europe? That Muslims have “deep roots” on the European continent and that Muslims are as imperiled by “Islamophobia” as Jews are by anti-Semitism?

Nothing could be further from the truth, and yet the first Gathering of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders issued a statement on May 9th and just held a meeting in Brussels on May 30, 2011. Oddly enough, the meeting was organized by two American Jewish groups, Rabbi Marc Schneier’s Foundation For Ethnic Understanding and philanthropist Ronald Lauder’s World Jewish Congress, as well as by the European Jewish Congress.

No Muslim organization seems to have shared in organizing the meeting, although two organizations and more than a dozen Muslim leaders attended and signed the joint declaration.

Can you believe this? It this some kind of exercise in dhimmitude and self-delusion? Why are the Jews doing the heavy lifting for the far wealthier Muslim world? More important: Why support such dangerously misguided concepts?

At this moment in world history, why are Jews confusing “Islamophobia” with anti-Semitism? One understands that Muslims might want to assume whatever is left of Jewish victimhood and make it their own—but why are Jews enabling them to do so? If the Muslims are coming in great good faith, they would state some obviously truths, beginning with the Koranic roots of Jew- and infidel-hatred and the contemporary Islamist/genocidal intentions towards the Jewish State. Indeed, a new kind of statement from Muslims would include their understanding of–and desire to break from–the historical Muslim persecution of Jews and infidels in Muslim-majority countries.

This is not that kind of statement or declaration.

Anti-Semitism cannot, must not, be equated with Islamophobia. European Muslims have nothing to fear from European Jews. European Jews have everything to fear from European Muslims.

As Clemens Heni, a scholar of German anti-Semitism, has pointed out: “There is no other prejudice or form of racism which you can compare to anti-Semitism. If you look at Islam today, there is a (reason for) Islamophobia because Jihadists say, ‘We want to kill the unbelievers.’ Jews never said that.” Those who equate legitimate fears of Islamist extremism with anti-Semitism, he argues, clearly “didn’t learn the lesson [of] the Holocaust. They are even downplaying the Holocaust itself.”

According to the declaration, “Jews and Muslims live side-by-side in every European country and our two communities are important components of Europe’s religious, cultural and social tapestry.” The document fails to mention that those Jews who live “side-by-side” with Muslims are in danger of being harassed, beaten, or even tortured to death, as was Ilan Halimi of France.

The declaration commits an outrage against history by equating the Jewish experience in Europe with the Muslim experience in Europe, even though Jews have been living as a persecuted minority on the continent for more than a thousand years while most Muslims only arrived in large numbers after World War II. The declaration lumps together the Shoah (Holocaust), the slaughter of six million Jews, with the mass killings of some thousands of Muslims in Bosnia during the 1990s. It ignores the history of Muslim Spain in the Middle Ages, when both Christian and Muslim rulers persecuted Jews and Muslim mobs slaughtered them in pogroms. Needless to say, no Jewish outrages against Christian or Muslim communities have ever taken place on European soil.

With mock solemnity, the document proclaims, “We must never allow anti-Semitism…to become respectable in today’s Europe”—as if anti-Semitism, in its modern guise of anti-Zionism, weren’t already perfectly respectable in every corner of Europe.

Rabbis all over Europe have been telling their people to flee before it is too late. Many Jews have done so.

Why is a group of Jews trying to help Muslims, however fine, by appealing to European governments not to “pander to right wing forces” which are, belatedly, beginning to gather in response to a Muslim population which is hostile to Western and European values, does not wish to assimilate, and is both separatist and violent?

Had Muslims come in total peace these “right wing forces” may have, indeed, been a reflection of European racism towards Arabs and dark-skinned “Easterners.” But the alleged “Islamophobia” is not based on bigoted considerations of color, faith, or ethnicity; it is, rather, based on the increasing danger that Muslims pose to the stability and character of Europe.

Will these Muslim signatories agree to a declaration that critiques Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in Gaza, and Palestinians in general, for their hatred of Israel, the Jewish state? If not, what is to be gained by standing in solidarity with such Muslims?

According to Clemens Heni, the views of this declaration:

“Definitely [do] not represent the Jewish community in Germany – neither the Central Council of Jews in Germany nor any important Jewish Community Center supports this (nonsense). Muslims did not at all live as long in Europe as Jews did. Muslims and Germans declared Jihad in November 1914, during the First World War. THIS is what the German – Muslim alliance in the 20th century is all about.”

In Heni’s view, the Muslim “history” in Europe is about Muslim anti-Semitic alliances with German and Nazi anti-Semites.

Who are the Jewish “leaders” who organized and attended this meeting? Who appointed them? Are they this desperate for headlines or so eager to be seen as “players”? Are they so genuinely frightened for their endangered European communities that they are willing to say and do anything, or are they simply dangerously misguided?

It is the midnight hour. What kinds of private deals and illusions are these leaders conjuring up for themselves?

I must admit that when I first began studying Islam and its political manifestations, I found myself puzzled and put off by the sheer foreignness and apparent complexity of the issues—in much the same way that patriotic Americans who supported the free market and a free society felt when confronted (during the 1930s) with the growth and influence of the global Communist movement. Did one really need to learn German—and the science of economics—in order to read Karl Marx, then Russian to master the subtleties of Leninist and Trotskyite theory?

If you wanted to be an academic you certainly did, but the average American who became an informed opponent of Communism was loath to dedicate so much of his time and energy to the intimate study of worldviews he knew—on the face of it—were incompatible with all his deepest values and the best interests of his country. What is more, he felt he could judge a tree by its fruits—the nature of which was clearly apparent to any honest observer (but not to dupes) from reports by escapees from Soviet Russia. Does one really need to master the thousands of pages of bad economics and clunky, reductionist philosophy penned by Marx and his minions to know that an economic system based on obliterating property rights and forcing men to abandon their inherent self-seeking was doomed to famines and tyranny?

Surely it helped that men like Ludwig von Mises provided devastating analyses of the flaws in Marxist theory—such as Mises’ classic essay on how any form of socialism destroys the price system, that elegantly efficient method of matching human work with human wants, and can only hope to replace it by reshaping civilization on the model of a termite colony. But a simple knowledge of history and human nature would have pointed the same conclusion.

Even monasteries populated by men who have voluntarily renounced property, progeny, and freedom of action—by embracing the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience—have frequently failed in their mission. The reason the world came to have so many Benedictine orders—the Cluniacs, the Trappists, the Cistercians—is that the original ideal was so hard to live, that monasteries quickly became corrupt, and had to give way to new “reform” branches that promised (this time!) to really live up to St. Benedict’s Rule. Much the same story unfolded among the Franciscans and even the Carmelites. If voluntary recruits to self-selected communities upheld by contemplative prayer cannot reliably hold to such anti-instinctual standards of behavior, what conceivable earthly power could enforce them on the mass of men? Only an all-encompassing tyranny more comprehensive than any the world had yet seen. A simple reading of The Communist Manifesto would have revealed its final program: godless monasticism, enforced at the point of a bayonet. The real essence of socialism was exposed by a wistful socialist, George Orwell, whose depiction in 1984 of the ideology he called “Oligarchical Collectivism” unveiled the ideology in its essence: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” His Ingsoc Party indeed favors an infernal, secular parody of monasticism, opposing on principle prosperity, eros, and liberty. Intelligent observers of Soviet policies could—and many did—draw such conclusions.

Likewise, honest readers of the Qur’an and other authoritative Muslim texts can draw certain conclusions, which all the evasions and obfuscations of pseudo-moderate Muslims (remember Eurocommunism? Anyone? It was all the rage in respectable liberal circles while I was in college in the 80s.) cannot obscure. Let me lay out my own no-nonsense take on the question, in a form I’ll call the Sharia Catechism:

What does Islam teach? Islam teaches that it is the final revelation from God, and the only legitimate world religion. All other faiths, or secular world views, are either idol-worship, blasphemous parodies of Islam, or degenerate perversions of it.

When was Islam founded? Islam was founded when Abraham made his covenant with God. The Jews who claimed that this covenant constituted Judaism are lying (as is their wont), and relying on faked scriptures that their scheming ancestors crafted to suit their own ethnic aggrandizement.

Where are the original scriptures recounting the history of Abraham, Moses, and other early Muslims?These original scriptures no longer exist. They were destroyed and replaced by the crafty Jews.

Who was Jesus?Jesus (Isa) was a Muslim prophet who came as the Messiah to recall the faithless Jews to their Muslim faith. The true accounts of his life and message were altered beyond recognition by the scheming Christians—who also spread the lie that he was crucified, and rose from the dead.

Where are these original Gospels? These original Gospels were destroyed by the early Christians (who were also, we must remember, Jews), shortly after they were written—in order to cover up their clear predictions of the coming of Muhammad.

Will Jesus come again at the end of the world?Yes, Jesus will come again to destroy Christianity, kill all the pigs in the world, and end dhimmitude—by forcing all Christians either to convert to Islam or be killed (like the pigs).

What is the proper treatment of non-Muslims?When Muslims are weak, they should practice tolerance of unbelievers, and ask for similar tolerance. As they grow in numbers, they must harden their attitudes as Muhammad hardened his once he commanded an army in Medina. Muslims should spread their faith by conquest; by preaching; and by emigrating to non-Muslim countries and demanding tolerance—then once they are strong enough, they should impose the true faith on the government where they can. Polytheists should then be allowed to convert or else be killed; monotheist infidels such as Jews and Christians should be offered a third option: Utter, willing subjection to Muslims, with their obedience binding on pain of death. These non-believers must pay a special, heavy tax and keep quiet about their religion, not trying to spread it.

So if Jews accept their proper role as dhimmis, they are in theory welcome in Muslim societies?Yes and no. In theory, yes. In practice, no. The atrocity of Zionist control of the Muslim holy city of Jerusalem is so great that no Jews should remain in Muslim countries. They are simply too crafty and dangerous.

Is sharia law an intrinsic part of Islam? Yes, it is as basic to Muslims as the Torah is to Jews and the sacraments are to Orthodox and Catholics. It is how Muslims live out their faith in the world.

Must Muslims seek to impose sharia?Only where it seems likely they will succeed. Until then, they should deceive the unbelievers, as Islamic ethics allow.

What about Muslims who oppose sharia and religious discrimination?They are bad Muslims, and they will burn in hell with all the Christians, Jews, and idol-worshippers. But we should not say this openly until we are strong enough throughout the West. Until then, it benefits us to highlight such people, and claim that they are representative.

What about those who oppose Islam?They are enemies of God who deserve death in this life and eternal punishment in the next. However, if it helps us fight them more effectively, we can call them “racists,” “xenophobes,” and “Islamophobe.”

What is an Islamophobe?An Islamophobe is someone who opposes sharia, and is unwilling either to convert or beg for the protection of dhimmitude.

Is stealth jihad behind ground zero mosque?

The virality of information in this galloping technological age was brought home to me the other day, when I received an e-mail about an article by Bill Kelly in the Washington Times Communities that contained some photographs I shot back in June.

I thought it might be a good idea to elaborate on that story and share more of what I saw and heard on that day.

Consider an interesting historical antecedent. In 1993, a controversy similar to the current one unfolded when residents of a Washington, D.C., suburb sought to use zoning laws to shut down the local mosque, ostensibly on grounds that it was a traffic nuisance.

“Worshipers of many faiths said closing the popular mosque . . . would amount to discrimination against one of the area’s fastest growing religions,” the Washington Times reported at the time.

The mosque in question? None other than the Dar al-Hijra, later to be known as the “9/11 mosque.” So, were the petitioners who sought to shut it down bigots? Or is it that they got a whiff of its extremism, and didn’t like the smell?

Here, of course, the argument will be made that Rauf really is a moderate. And that might well be so — by the standards of his native Kuwait.

But a man who claims to condemn all forms of terrorism yet refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group is not a moderate by American standards, which happen to be the relevant standards when trying to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero.

Abdul Rauf’s supporters will have to choose between defending him on grounds of his alleged moderation (in which case his views are relevant) or on the principle of religious liberty (in which case they’re not). They can’t have it both ways.

Meanwhile, politicians of every stripe are staking out turf or digging foxholes to hide in. One politician who in my opinion rises above the rest, former NYC mayor Rudy Gulliani, strikes at the heart of the issue with these words directed as a challenge to Rauf and his gang:

“This project is divisive. This project is creating tremendous pain for people who’ve already made the ultimate sacrifice. All you’re doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred…The question here is of sensitivity, of people’s feelings, and are you really what you pretend to be. If you want to claim to be the healer, then you’re not on the side of the person who’s pushing those divisive issues.

“I was the first person on Sept. 11 to step forward in the heat of battle and say, ‘No group blame, do not blame Arabs, it’s a small group’. But the reality is that, right now, if you are a healer you do not go through with this project. If you’re a warrior, you do.”

At 3 p.m. Sept. 11, Geller will lead a second rally in New York against the mosque proposal.

Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has forcefully condemned Tyranny of Silence, a new book by Flemming Rose.

Mr. Rose, you may remember, is the editor who published the infamous Mohammed Cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten back in 2005. His book gives an account of that incident and related events, and includes a copy of the full page of cartoons. Needless to say, the reappearance of the Motoons is what twists the knickers of the OIC.

“Baron,” you say, “This is a dog-bites-man story. Why do you even bother mentioning it?”

That’s a good question.

This is a small skirmish in a much larger battle: the OIC’s ten-year plan to combat “Islamophobia”, which is chronicled by its much-touted Islamophobia Observatory. There’s more to Prof. Ihsanoglu’s statement than meets the eye, but you have to know how to decode the utterances of the OIC to get at the full import of what they’re putting over on us.

When the OIC issues public declarations, they are carefully constructed to be in full compliance with sharia. Islamic law is “coded”, in the sense that a computer program is coded; that is, lengthy instructions and pieces of information are condensed into a relatively small number of words and phrases, which are packed with pre-defined meanings. What is significant for our purposes is that those words and phrases often signify something completely different from what we commonly understand them to mean.

OIC Secretary General Condemns Publication of the Book “Tyranny of Silence”

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu today strongly condemned the publication of the book entitled “Tyranny of Silence” in Denmark. The book contains a compilation of denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) published by the Jyllands Posten in 2005 which aroused worldwide condemnation and denunciation, and caused hurt and insult to the sentiments of Muslims around the world.

The OIC Secretary General expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he and some other leaders of the Muslim countries had personally addressed letters to the Foreign Minister of Denmark urging the intervention of the Danish government against the publication due to the highly provocative and inciting contents of the book. He reiterated his position when the Foreign Minister of Denmark called on him to discuss the issue at the sidelines of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly.

Emphasizing the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard, the Secretary General said that the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudices and animosity which would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community for promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence among peoples of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

Referring to the statement issued by the Danish Foreign Ministry, the Secretary General said that the publication constituted a flagrant violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. In this connection he also referred to the Danish Criminal Code which in its section ‘140’ stipulates protection of religious feelings against mockery and scorn, and in section ‘266 b’ stipulates protection of groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religions among other things.

He added that the publication of the book substantiated the OIC’s concerns over the abuse of freedom of expression by motivated groups and individuals to fuel hatred towards Islam and Muslims in some parts of the western world.

— Jeddah, September 30, 2010

The first thing to notice is this lovely Trojan Horse which the UN has kindly provided for the OIC, and inside which the Soldiers of Allah have been wheeled into the heart of the citadel of Western human rights:

“Violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights”

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law [emphasis added].

The above wording has proved very useful to the Ummah. As I have pointed out many times in the past, the OIC has been hard at work for more than a decade to persuade the UN that “Islamophobia” is a form of racism. And they have largely succeeded in their efforts, especially now that the current American administration has given their initiative the Obama seal of approval.

With all that in mind, let’s take a closer look at some of the words and phrases that are so densely packed with meaning when used by the OIC.

1. Abuse of freedom of expression

So what does the OIC mean by freedom of expression?

The OIC identifies English as one of its official languages, so to understand the official position of the OIC on any issue, one need only visit the OIC website, choose the “English” tab, and read what is found there. Those English-language descriptions represent the official policy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

From the OIC’s perspective, “freedom of expression” is a precisely-defined term. Its meaning is controlled by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which in turn is controlled by Islamic law. So the OIC’s understanding of “freedom of expression” is drawn directly from sharia.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a formal legal instrument that was promulgated by the OIC on behalf of OIC member states. The official document is dated 5 August, 1990, and was formally served at the United Nations in 1993. From the point of view of the OIC’s member states, the Cairo Declaration is real law, and has real consequences.

Below are some of the relevant provisions spelled out in the Cairo Declaration:

ARTICLE 2:

(a)

Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.

[…]

(c)

The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by Allah is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.

(d)

Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.

[…]

ARTICLE 19:

(a)

All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.

[…]

(d)

There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah. [emphasis added]

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is really the application of sharia law repackaged as “human rights”. For its signatories, there is no right that can contravene or lie outside of sharia. Articles 24 and 25 give a concise expression:

ARTICLE 24:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 25:

The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Now we know that sharia contains the sole criteria by which these rights are measured. For all OIC member states — that is, all signatories to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam — human rights are defined as sharia law.

Therefore, when analyzing statements from either the OIC or an OIC member state, the reader should keep in mind that Articles 24 and 25 are in effect.

And what does the Cairo Declaration have to say about freedom of expression?

ARTICLE 22:

(a)

Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

(b)

Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.

[…]

(d)

It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination. [emphasis added]

The Cairo Declaration thus lists racism and the incitement of doctrinal hatred as exceptions to the right of free speech. The European Union has already criminalized “racist” speech, and “incitement of doctrinal hatred” is the basis of one of the charges filed against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. The United States is not as far along as Europe (yet), but, as you can see, the European Union is well on the way to full sharia-compliance with respect to freedom of expression.

Officially or not, intentionally or otherwise, the EU is moving towards the implementation of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

Having absorbed the above lessons in basic sharia, it’s easy to understand the significance of the next phrase:

2. Incite prejudices and animosity

As we now know, it is an abuse of freedom of expression as defined by sharia to “excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred”, and “inciting prejudices and animosity” constitutes one method by which such hatred might be excited. What precise abuses might constitute the incitement of prejudices and animosity? The Secretary General’s statement includes several variants of the same offense:

3. Denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

Highly provocative and inciting contents of the book

Hatred towards Islam

Insult to the sentiments of Muslims

Mockery and scorn

Scorn and degradation on account of their religions

This last item contains a “term of art” that is artful enough to verge on kitman, or theologically-mandated misdirection.

When the OIC refers to “religions”, it seems to be embracing modern Western principles by acknowledging the need to show tolerance for other religions.

But what other religions does Islam recognize?

When a Westerner — generally a Jew, a Christian, or an atheist — uses the word “religion”, he knows exactly what he means: a group of people who share a body of beliefs, recognize a supernatural creator, and adhere to moral doctrines as laid down in scripture and codified by tradition. He also recognizes that there are many religions, and accepts that other people may adhere to a different one than he does — if he himself even has one.

But that’s not a Muslim means by “religion”. Assuming that he follows the tenets of Islamic law, when he says “religion”, he means “Islam” — there is no other.

The grounds for this assertion may be found — surprise! — in the Koran, which recognizes only one religion. Surah 3 tells us:

God said, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah)418, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).” (Koran 3:85, Yusef Ali’s translation)

Yusef Ali footnotes this passage with #418:

The Muslim position is clear. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view all Religion is one, for the Truth is one. It was the religion preached by all the earlier Prophets. It was the truth taught by all the inspired Books. In essence it amounts to a consciousness of the Will and Plan of Allah and a joyful submission to that Will and Plan. If anyone wants a religion other than that, he is false to his own nature, as he is false to Allah’s Will and Plan. Such a one cannot expect guidance, for he has deliberately renounced guidance. [emphasis added]

If the Koran — which is the basis of all Islamic law — tells us that any religion other than Islam is false, then what does the OIC mean when it proposes “to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation”? What other religions does the OIC acknowledge besides Islam?

The most authoritative compilation of Sunni Islamic law, as understood by the Shafi’te School, is Reliance of the Traveller. In Book W, “Notes and Appendices”, al-Misri tackles the topic of “Abrogation of Previously Revealed Religions”. Quoting Mohammed (citing a rigorously authenticated hadith from Muslim), he says:

By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad (pbuh), any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.

Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world.

To believe that “remnant cults” such as Judaism or Christianity are acceptable is a form of unbelief. And “unbelief” is explained in Book O, “Justice”, Section 8, “Apostasy from Islam”:

Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst. (o8.0)

Whoever Voluntarily Leaves Islam Is Killed.

[…]

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. (o8.1)

If “denying or not mentioning” the abrogation of the other religions is “unbelief”, anyone who believes that Christianity or Judaism is “acceptable” is an apostate, and may be put to death.

The passage at w4.1 continues:

This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars…

When there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars, the matter in question has been permanently and completely settled. Scholarly consensus (ijma’) puts an issue beyond ijtihad, or interpretation. As far as Islam is concerned, the matter is closed.

So we may conclude that published Islamic law — relying on recognized authority, citing authoritative hadith, validating the plain reading of Koran 3:85 — tells us that the set of all religions that are considered valid has only a single element, and that element is Islam.

When any member state of the OIC — or any other entity of the Ummah — speaks of “defamation of religions”, it cannot refer to any religion other than Islam. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Wicca cannot be defamed. According to Islamic legal definition, the only religion that can possibly be defamed is Islam.

This is why the OIC, using its overwhelming influence at the UN, is making such a concerted effort to force non-Muslim countries to enact laws against the defamation of “religions”.

This also helps us understand what it is meant by:

4. Moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard

And:

5. Promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence

The non-Muslim nations of the world have a moral responsibility, and that responsibility can only de defined by Islamic law, since Islam is the only recognized moral authority.

The political leadership of Denmark, like any other political entity in the world, exercises the authority delegated to it as a dhimmi state subordinated to the Ummah. Using that authority, it must execute the moral code specified by sharia by protecting Islam from insults and defamation.

For Muslims, “understanding” means to accept their submission to the will of Allah as revealed to his messenger Mohammed.

For non-Muslims, “understanding” means to recognize their inferiority, and acknowledge the supremacy of Islam.

“Peaceful coexistence” means that dhimmis — non-Muslims who are allowed to live within an Islamic state on a provisional basis — must obey the tenets of sharia, pay the poll tax by their own hand with full submission, and feel themselves subdued.

These are the meanings that are encoded in the OIC statement. The same meanings are encoded in various forms in every OIC statement.

All of this is quite clear. None of it is occluded. It’s not hard to understand; you just have to study the actual texts that make up the body of Islamic law.

It’s not a secret. It doesn’t require any special insider knowledge to figure it out. Read what Islamic legal authorities write with Muslims as their intended audience, and that will explain it all.

You also have to ignore what the glib-tongued impresarios of Islam say for the benefit of non-Muslims.

“The Muslim world is going through an unprecedented difficult and trying time,” said the Secretary General of the 56-state Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, on Friday.

One might reasonably have thought that he was referring to the recent increase in violent jihad incidents in the West, perpetrated by Muslims who explained and justified their actions by reference to Islamic texts and teachings. But no, Ihsanoglu was exercised about “Islamophobia,” the invented term Islamic supremacists use to try to stifle realistic analysis of the global jihad in all its manifestations.

“We are facing daunting challenges and severe hardships,” Ihsanoglu complained. “Islam and Muslims are under serious attack, and Islamophobia is growing and becoming more rampant and dangerous by the day.”

It is not at all established that “Islamophobia” really is growing. In fact, the FBI has recently released data establishing that hate crimes against Muslims are comparatively rare. But if there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is solely and wholly the responsibility of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and murdered another in a jihad shooting outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many others.

Yet Ihsanoglu, with an evasion of responsibility that is characteristic of Islamic supremacists, pretends that non-Muslims are growing more suspicious of Muslims and Islam not because of this, but because of some gratuitous bigotry. This is a tried and tested tactic, designed precisely to divert attention from Islamic jihad attacks and to shame and discredit those who would dare stand up to jihad (both violent and stealth) and Islamic supremacism in the West.

Without any reference to the pandemic of jihad violence either in the U.S. or worldwide, Ihsanoglu referred instead to a “pandemic of Islam vilification” in the U.S. and Europe, and declared: “We need an all inclusive effort of OIC member states to stem this menace. That is why I firmly believe that this question of Islamophobia should figure prominently on the agenda of all OIC member states whenever they deal with their Western counterparts.”

What Ihsanoglu and the OIC want Western states to do is limit the freedom of speech regarding Islam and jihad. In 2008 he issued a dictatorial warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

Since then he has encountered success beyond his wildest dreams, for the Obama Administration has extended and broadened the Bush policy of refraining from speaking about Islam and jihad in connection with acts of Islamic jihad terrorism. The absurdity of this policy reached its apex with the official report on the Fort Hood massacre, which blithely ignored Nidal Hasan’s clear, public, and repeated adherence to Islamic jihad doctrine, his cries of “Allahu akbar” as he committed his murders, and his passing out of Korans on the morning of his massacre.

Ihsanoglu is coming to Chicago for a conference with leaders of Hamas-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The mainstream media will almost certainly overlook the principal importance of the conference, and its anti-free speech agenda, and will report uncritically about the rise in “Islamophobia” and the fears among Muslims of a “backlash.” There will be no discussion at this conference of how to prevent or even limit the spread of the jihad ideology among Muslims—in other words, there will be no attempt to attack the actual causes of “Islamophobia.”

In less Orwellian times, that would be revealing enough for anyone to see how the Organization of the Islamic Conference and its allies are using charges of “Islamophobia” as a weapon to advance the jihad no less unmistakably than Osama bin Laden did on September 11, 2001.

As has often been discussed in this blog, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the worldwide clearinghouse for political Islam. This makes the OIC the linchpin of the Ummah, and thus the enabler and promoter of the Great Jihad. More than any other Islamic entity, the OIC merits the closest scrutiny of the Counterjihad.

In an article today in The American Thinker, Bat Ye’or has composed a succinct summary of the history, mission, and significance of the OIC. She begins with this overview:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims.

The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.

Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion’s share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC’s docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.

Ms. Ye’or also points out what has often been noted here: the OIC is the nascent Caliphate, ready to re-establish what was abolished in 1924. It’s also obvious that Turkey is lining up for the privilege of hosting the new Caliph, thus re-establishing the Ottoman Empire at the same time.

By characterizing Muslim violence all over the world as “legitimate resistance”, the OIC supports jihad against non-Muslims in its various manifestations. This is a logical extension of the OIC’s assertion that its mandate extends to all Muslims, including those who form a minority within non-Muslim countries.

This extraterritorial ambition — to influence legal and political doings in countries where such matters are none of its business — is characteristic of political Islam. In this enterprise the OIC is aided and abetted by cowardly Western leaders, who are only too willing to grant the concessions sought by the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Ms. Ye’or says:

The Islamic Court of Justice has an international mandate and could try foreigners, both Muslims and non-Muslims (blasphemers, apostates, resisters to jihad) who have broken the laws of shari’a anywhere. Moreover, the claim by the OIC to be the guardian and protector of Muslim immigrants living in all countries that are not members of the OIC implies an extension of its jurisdiction and political influence over all the Muslims of Europe, North and South America, and the other non-Member States. This situation exacerbates the danger incurred by non-religious European Muslims, whether atheists, apostates, or free thinkers.

Islamic law is a danger not only to the Copts in Egypt, the Baha’i in Iran, and the Maronites in Lebanon. It menaces all non-Muslims everywhere, because the craven and/or bespoke elected leaders of Western countries are passive and supine in the face of it.
September 26, 2010

OIC and the Modern Caliphate

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims.

The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.

Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion’s share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC’s docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.

Religion as the main aspect of the OIC emerges from its language and its targets. It seems that the OIC is restoring in the 21st century the Caliphate, the supreme controlling body for all Muslims. In their Charter (2008), Member States confirm that their union and solidarity are inspired by Islamic values. They affirm their aim to reinforce within the international arena their shared interests and the promotion of Islamic values. They commit themselves to revitalizing the pioneering role of Islam in the world, increasing the prosperity of the member states, and — in contrast to to the European states — to ensure the defense of their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They proclaim their support for Palestine with al-Quds Al Sharif, the Arabized name for Jerusalem, as its capital, and exhort each other to promote human rights, basic freedoms, the state of law (shari’a), and democracy according to their constitutional and legal system — in other words, compliance with shari’a.

They also undertake to stimulate noble Muslim values, to preserve their symbols and their shared heritage, and to defend the universality of the Islamic religion — simply put, the universal propagation of Islam (da’wa). They state that they are promoting women’s rights and encourage their active participation in all walks of life, in accordance with the laws of the Member States. They agree to inculcate Muslim children with Islamic values and to support Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States in order to preserve their dignity and their cultural and religious identity.

The Charter’s strategic targets seek “[t]o ensure active participation of the Member States [of the OIC] in the global political, economic and social decision-making processes to secure their common interests” (I-5) and “[t]o promote and defend unified position on issues of common interest in international forums” (1-17).

Among its targets, the OIC Charter specifies the propagation, promotion, and preservation of Islamic teachings and values, the spread of Islamic culture, and the preservation of the Islamic heritage (I-11). Article I-12 promotes the protection and defense of the true image of Islam, the fight against its defamation, and the encouragement of dialogue between civilizations and religions. The other objectives deal with protecting inherent Islamic family values (I-14) and the preservation of rights, dignity, and religious and cultural identity of the Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States (I-16). This issue points to the OIC authority over immigrants abroad and its pressure on the governments of the non-Muslim host countries through the channel of dialogue, including the Alliance of Civilizations, whose Report backs OIC programs, and interfaith and immigration networks.

The OIC supports all the jihadist movements considered to be resisting “foreign occupation,” including those in “occupied” Indian Kashmir, and condemns the “humiliation and oppression” of Muslims in India.

The Charter stipulates that the International Islamic Court of Justice shall become the Organization’s main legal body (Chap. X, Art. 14) and that “[t]he Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organization’s [OIC] covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values” (Art. 15). It implies that the covenants which do not conform with Islamic values will not be followed.

One can note that Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, accused (according to Western criteria of justice) of genocide committed in southern Sudan and Darfur, has not been troubled by the Islamic Court of Justice. His colleagues at the OIC do not consider him in any way a criminal and receive him with great respect, as does Turkish PM Erdogan.

The Islamic Court of Justice has an international mandate and could try foreigners, both Muslims and non-Muslims (blasphemers, apostates, resisters to jihad) who have broken the laws of shari’a anywhere. Moreover, the claim by the OIC to be the guardian and protector of Muslim immigrants living in all countries that are not members of the OIC implies an extension of its jurisdiction and political influence over all the Muslims of Europe, North and South America, and the other non-Member States. This situation exacerbates the danger incurred by non-religious European Muslims, whether atheists, apostates, or free thinkers.

Within its organization, the Charter presents characteristics similar to those of the EU; however, in terms of its spirit, functions, principles, and objectives, it is the EU’s very antithesis. Even if it employs the language of international organizations, the meaning of the words is different by their being rooted in the conceptual world of the Koran, which contradicts the basis of secular Western thought. Thus, Article 32-2 states, “The Council of Foreign Ministers [of OIC countries] shall recommend the rules of procedures of the Islamic Summit.” This implies an Islamic view and understanding on policy.

Such a combined political and religious institution is at the very outer rim of Western thinking, anchored as it is in the separation between politics and religion. Even if interference between the two fields has persisted, the principle of such separation has facilitated emancipation in the intellectual and political arenas from religious authority and the development of critical thought.

Present-day aspiration of the Ummah to submit to a caliphate which embodies a combined political-religious institution can only surprise the Westerner and highlight the gap that separates the two. Rooted in individualism, Europeans cultivate the search for happiness and cherish freedom of thought and of rational, scientific exploration, which are perceived as a human being’s greatest privilege and finest adventure.

Conversely, aspiring to the Caliphate indicates the longing for a supreme authority owing its infallibility to Allah and his human intermediary, Mohammed. According to Ibn Khaldoun, this institution placing politics at the service of worldwide, religious expansionism was created as instrument for the mandatory Islamization of mankind. Faced today with this political archaism, a divided and broken West seeks refuge in denial and grasps at the demise of tiny Israel as though at a lifebelt. Taking in water from every side, this West that abandons its own identity for multilateralism and multiculturalism and ruins its citizenry by buying security has little chance of survival.